Certainty of meaning of section.

- Statute in no uncertain terms declares "the title to and right to control and process" the crop is in the landlord and until the landlord has received the landlord's share of the crop and been paid for all advances made to aid in making the crop. This law may be harsh and inequitable, but it is not ambiguous. Goodson v. Watson, 125 Ga. 413, 54 S.E. 84 (1906) (see O.C.G.A. § 44-7-101).

Cropper and tenant distinguished.

- If the owners of land employ one to work on the land, and agree to give one a part of the crop for making the crop, then the title would be in the landowners, and the landowners could take it and give one off one's part; but when the landowners turn over the land to one who is to farm thereon, and from the crop one is to pay the landowners sixteen hundred pounds of lint cotton, this creates the relation of landlord and tenant; the title to the cotton is in the tenant, and the landlords have only a lien thereon, and cannot take the cotton without the consent of the tenant. Wadley v. Williams, 75 Ga. 272 (1885).

Stock as crop.

- Crops are the product of the soil and do not include the increase of livestock; when a landlord furnishes to a cropper livestock, the increase of which is to be raised by the latter on shares and to be divided equally between the parties, their relation with reference thereto is that of owners or tenants in common, and not that of landlord and cropper. Ellis, McKinnon & Brown v. Hopps, 30 Ga. App. 453, 118 S.E. 583 (1923).

Cropper is laborer.

- Cropper has the status of a laborer. DeLoach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884, 47 S.E. 204 (1904).

Cropper not partner.

- That the cropper furnishes the labor necessary to the making of the crop, and is to receive a portion thereof as compensation for the cropper's services, does not place the cropper in the situation of a partner having an undivided interest in the product of the cropper's labor. Padgett v. Ford, 117 Ga. 508, 43 S.E. 1002 (1903).

Crops are wages.

- Part of the crop to which the cropper is entitled is in the nature of wages. McElmurray v. Turner, 86 Ga. 215, 12 S.E. 359 (1890); DeLoach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884, 47 S.E. 204 (1904); Vinson v. State, 124 Ga. 19, 52 S.E. 79 (1905). See also Taylor v. Coney, Lovejoy & Co., 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897); Betts v. State, 6 Ga. App. 773, 65 S.E. 841 (1909).

Landlord and cropper as tenants in common.

- When, after a full settlement between a landlord and cropper in which the landlord is paid for all advances made to the cropper to aid in making the crops, it is found that a number of bales of cotton are subject to equal division between the parties, but in lieu of such division the cropper, at the direction of the landlord, deposits the cotton in a warehouse and obtains a receipt therefor issued by the warehouseman jointly to the landlord and the cropper as bailors, which receipt is delivered to and accepted by the landlord with the understanding that the cotton will not be sold until such time as the landlord and the cropper shall both agree upon, the relation of tenants in common as to such cotton results as between the parties to whom the warehouse receipt is issued, and the landlord will hold the receipt as a symbol of the property for the use of the landlord and the cropper as a cotenant, they being tenants in common as to the property represented thereby. George v. Bullard, 178 Ga. 589, 173 S.E. 920 (1934).

Laborer's lien.

- Cropper is one who works for wages payable in part of the crop produced; cropper is a laborer and may maintain a laborer's lien upon the crop as the property of the cropper's employer. McElmurray v. Turner, 86 Ga. 215, 12 S.E. 359 (1890); Lewis v. Owens, 124 Ga. 228, 52 S.E. 333 (1905); Vinson v. State, 124 Ga. 19, 52 S.E. 79 (1905); Faircloth v. Webb, 125 Ga. 230, 53 S.E. 592 (1906); Garrick v. Jones, 2 Ga. App. 382, 58 S.E. 543 (1907); Howard v. Franklin, 32 Ga. App. 737, 124 S.E. 554 (1924).

Enforcement of laborer's lien.

- Cropper is not ordinarily entitled to enforce a lien against a landlord without showing full compliance on the cropper's part with the terms of the agreement. Harvey v. Lewis, 19 Ga. App. 655, 91 S.E. 1052 (1917).

Trover against landlord improper.

- Cropper cannot maintain against the landlord an action of trover, the title to the crops being in the latter. Bryant v. Pugh, 86 Ga. 525, 12 S.E. 927 (1891); DeLoach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884, 47 S.E. 204 (1904); Smart v. Hill, 29 Ga. App. 400, 116 S.E. 66 (1923).

Cropper's damages.

- If the landlord wrongfully refuses to perform the landlord's part of the contract, the cropper may sue immediately for the cropper's special injuries, if any, including the value of services rendered, or the cropper may wait until the expiration of the harvest season and sue for the full value of the cropper's share of the crop or what the cropper's share would reasonably have been under a faithful performance of the contract by both parties. Surrency v. O'Quinn, 45 Ga. App. 455, 165 S.E. 171 (1932).

Nonperformance caused by landlord.

- Lack of full performance by the cropper will not defeat the foreclosure of such a lien when, without fault on the cropper's part, such failure to fully comply with the cropper's contractual obligation is caused by the unauthorized acts and conduct of the landlord. Lewis v. Owens, 124 Ga. 228, 52 S.E. 333 (1905); Haralson v. Speer, 1 Ga. App. 573, 58 S.E. 142 (1907); Ballard v. Daniel, 18 Ga. App. 449, 89 S.E. 603 (1916); Payne v. Trammell, 29 Ga. App. 475, 115 S.E. 923 (1923).

Mortgageable interest.

- While the cropper has a "mortgageable interest" in the crops, such interest cannot be subjected to the mortgage debt until the cropper has acquired title; and this the cropper cannot do before a division between oneself and the landlord. Jordan v. Jones, 110 Ga. 47, 35 S.E. 151 (1900); Fountain v. Fountain, 10 Ga. App. 758, 73 S.E. 1096 (1912).

Interest of landlord.

- Landlord's interest in the title to crops grown by the landlord's cropper is only to the extent of the value of the landlord's portion of the crops, as well as of any indebtedness for advances made to the cropper. Way v. Bailey, 18 Ga. App. 57, 88 S.E. 799 (1916); Franklin v. Tanner, 34 Ga. App. 254, 129 S.E. 114 (1925).

Landlord's cause of action.

- If the relation of landlord and cropper existed, and there was not an actual division and settlement between the landlord and cropper according to the terms of the contract, the landlord could bring against the cropper an action of trover to recover the share of the crop belonging to the landlord and of which the cropper was in possession. Harley v. Davis, 7 Ga. App. 386, 66 S.E. 1102 (1910); DeLoach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884, 47 S.E. 204 (1904); Welch v. Lindsey, 27 Ga. App. 164, 107 S.E. 891 (1921).

Possession of land.

- If the relationship is one of the landlord and cropper, then the possession of the land remains in the owner. Taylor v. Coney, Lovejoy & Co., 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897); Betts v. State, 6 Ga. App. 773, 65 S.E. 841 (1909); Parks v. Langley, 17 Ga. App. 761, 88 S.E. 695 (1916); Kiker v. Jones, 20 Ga. App. 704, 93 S.E. 253 (1917); Cullars v. State, 28 Ga. App. 113, 110 S.E. 330 (1922).

Control of crop by landlord.

- See Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892, 12 Am. St. R. 241 (1887); Parks v. Langley, 17 Ga. App. 761, 88 S.E. 695 (1916).

Landlord's recovery for loss of labor.

- Landowner cannot recover for the loss of time by cropper and family on account of sickness although the cropper is only hired to raise the crop. Central Ga. Power Co. v. Parker, 144 Ga. 135, 86 S.E. 324 (1915).

Conversion by cropper.

- It is a conversion for a cropper, without consent of the landlord, to gather and sell a part of the crop and apply the proceeds to the cropper's own use. Williams v. Mitchem, 151 Ga. 227, 106 S.E. 284 (1921); Payne v. Trammell, 29 Ga. App. 475, 115 S.E. 923 (1923).

Landlord's recovery from third person.

- Landlord, until the landlord has received the landlord's part of the crops and has been fully paid for all advances made to the cropper, ordinarily has such possession of the crops as will authorize the issuance of a possessory warrant at the landlord's instance to recover possession of the crops from a third person who takes possession thereof without the landlord's consent and without other lawful warrant or authority. Whitworth v. Carter, 39 Ga. App. 625, 147 S.E. 904 (1929).

Waiver of landlord's lien.

- Even if the relationship of landlord and cropper is shown, an executed waiver of the landlord's lien on the crops is an agreement that would alter the landlord's rights. Trapnell v. Swainsboro Prod. Credit Ass'n, 208 Ga. 89, 65 S.E.2d 179 (1951).

Variation by agreement.

- While it is ordinarily true that under the relation of landlord and cropper the landlord has the right to control and possess the crops until the landlord has received the landlord's portion and is fully paid for all advances made by the landlord to aid in their production, the right may be varied by special agreement. Hanson v. Fletcher, 183 Ga. 858, 190 S.E. 29 (1937).

Collusion to defeat creditor.

- If by collusion the landlord and the cropper attempt to defeat the creditor by refusing to make a division or otherwise, undoubtedly equity would afford relief. Fountain v. Fountain, 10 Ga. App. 758, 73 S.E. 1096 (1912).

Indictment for stealing.

- In an accusation of stealing or attempting to steal a portion of the growing crop, the ownership should be alleged to be in the landlord, and not in the cropper. Betts v. State, 6 Ga. App. 773, 65 S.E. 841 (1909).

Instructions.

- Court erred in failing to charge that title did not pass to tenant until advances are paid when it appears that the landlord had made advances for which the landlord had not been paid. Smith v. Anglin, 14 Ga. App. 311, 80 S.E. 693 (1914).

Cited in Rhodes v. Verdery, 157 Ga. 162, 121 S.E. 221 (1924); Folds v. Harris, 34 Ga. App. 445, 129 S.E. 664 (1925); Youngblood v. Duncan, 49 Ga. App. 300, 175 S.E. 411 (1934); Crews v. Roberson, 62 Ga. App. 855, 10 S.E.2d 114 (1940); Flynt v. Barrett, 73 Ga. App. 396, 36 S.E.2d 868 (1946).

Suretyship by landlord insufficient.

- That the title to the crops will vest in the landlord until paid for all advances means that the landlord must actually furnish the advances and not merely stand surety for the cropper to some other person who furnishes them. Rhodes v. Verdery, 157 Ga. 162, 121 S.E. 221 (1924).

Third party making advances.

- If the landlord is unable to make advances and requests another to do so, the person making the advances has a claim against the crops that will prevail over the landlord's claims or interest therein. Trapnell v. Swainsboro Prod. Credit Ass'n, 208 Ga. 89, 65 S.E.2d 179 (1951).

Remedy of third party lienholder.

- When after signing a waiver of all liens upon the crops grown by one's tenant in favor of a lien of a third party for advances to aid in making crops, the landlord receives the proceeds from the crops, which are sufficient to satisfy the lien for advances, and converts the same to the landlord's own use, a petition of the holder of the lien for such advances against the landlord and the tenant, seeking judgment against them as trustees ex maleficio for the full amount of such advances, states a cause of action against both the owner and tenant. Trapnell v. Swainsboro Prod. Credit Ass'n, 208 Ga. 89, 65 S.E.2d 179 (1951).

Title before settlement and division.

- When the relation of landlord and cropper is created, the title to all crops grown on the land remains in the landlord until there has been an actual division and settlement whereby one receives in full one's share of the produce. Wadley v. Williams, 75 Ga. 272 (1885); Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95, 4 S.E. 892, 12 Am. St. R. 241 (1887); Taylor v. Coney, Lovejoy & Co., 101 Ga. 655, 28 S.E. 974 (1897); Smart v. Hill, 29 Ga. App. 400, 116 S.E. 66 (1923); Cavin v. McWhorter, 37 Ga. App. 477, 140 S.E. 778 (1927); Courson v. Land, 54 Ga. App. 534, 188 S.E. 360 (1936).

Title after settlement and before division.

- When there has been no division of the crop between the landlord and the cropper and when the cropper's portion of the crop has not been set aside, no title to the crop passes into the cropper, although the cropper may have settled with the landlord for all advances made. Atlanta Trust Co. v. Oliver-McDonald Co., 36 Ga. App. 360, 136 S.E. 824 (1927).

What amounts to division.

- When a cropper has settled with the cropper's landlord for all advances made and has delivered to the landlord the latter's part of all the crops raised except certain cotton in the possession of the cropper which, under the terms of the contract, is to be divided between the landlord and the cropper, a transformation by the cropper of such remaining cotton into two bales of different weights, one weight representing the amount of cotton that belongs to the landlord and the other weight representing the amount of cotton belonging to the cropper, amounts to a division of the cotton, since each man's portion is identified by the different weights; and, upon delivery by the cropper to the landlord of the bale representing the landlord's portion of the cotton, the landlord's title to the other bale is immediately divested from the landlord and vested in the cropper. Thompson v. Price, 30 Ga. App. 653, 118 S.E. 598 (1923).

Interest of cropper before settlement.

- Before there has been a settlement paying the landlord in full for advances and rent, the tenant has such an interest as will sustain an allegation of joint ownership with the landlord. Randolph v. State, 16 Ga. App. 328, 85 S.E. 258 (1915); Parker v. State, 23 Ga. App. 591, 99 S.E. 220 (1919).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 49 Am. Jur. 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 545.

C.J.S.

- 51C C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, § 2.

ALR.

- Cropper's right to thresher's lien or lien for other work on share of owner, 35 A.L.R. 450.

Right to crops sown or grown by one wrongfully in possession of land, 57 A.L.R. 584.